[Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan

Matthew Stiff matthew at matthewstiff.com
Thu Nov 5 00:50:56 EET 2009

Thanks Martin. 

How about

"is intended to be executed during (is intended duration of execution of) :
E52 Time-Span"

I do think we should include links to items and places, but also to actors.
How do we deal with the fact that the plan may not be specific about any of
these things? E.g. the plan may refer to a particular place or to a type of
place, a particular object or a type of object, a particular actor or a type
of actor? The difference between classes and instances of classes. 

Best wishes, 


Dr Matthew Stiff
19 Riverside Road

(t)           +44 1865 425982
(m)         +44 7939 151510

-----Original Message-----
From: martin [mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr] 
Sent: 04 November 2009 20:57
To: Matthew Stiff
Cc: 'crm-sig'
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan

Hi Matthew,

"execution was intended for (is intended execution time of) : E52 Time-Span"

subproperty of "refers to".

"This property associates an Activity Plan with the future time-span the
planned activity was
intended to be executed. An Activity Plan may or may not foresee a
particular future time-span
of execution."

Example: Planning an exhibition for certain dates.

May be we should also provide a link to the venue, and the items to be

Does that make sense?



Matthew Stiff wrote:
> Hello Martin (and sorry for long silence!) :-)
> I think this is really useful. One observation is that in practice
> Plans" are often dusted down and reused, but in doing so they have to be
> checked against their applicability to each instance of an activity so to
> all intents and purposes they are "new" plans.
> I genuinely don't understand what you mean by the second of your proposed
> properties - Could you provide a scope note and an example for this and I
> will try to think if there is a clearer way of expressing it? 
> Best wishes, 
> Matthew
> Dr Matthew Stiff
> 19 Riverside Road
> Oxford
> OX2 0HT
> (t)           +44 1865 425982
> (m)         +44 7939 151510
> -----Original Message-----
> From: crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr]
> Behalf Of martin
> Sent: 31 October 2009 13:05
> To: crm-sig
> Subject: [Crm-sig] Issue: Activity Plan
> Dear All,
> I wonder if we should introduce a class "Activity Plan" IsA E29 Design or
> Procedure:
> Scope note:
> This class comprises plans to execute instances of E7 Activity in some
> foreseen future. The planned
> activities may have any degree of complexity or elaboration. Plans may be
> made with or without intention
> to execute them, or the intention to execute them may be abandon before
> their execution. The actual
> intention to stick to a plan could be seen as a kind of activity using the
> plan.
> Properties:
> "planned to execute activity of type(is type of activity planned by): E55
> Type"
> "execution was intended for (is intended execution time of) : E52
> I believe this simple model would close the known gap of the CRM to the
> whole world of planning,
> we have so far not addressed, but nevertheless is an integral part also of
> historical reasoning.
> Comments welcome.
> Martin


  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Principle Researcher          |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
  Vassilika Vouton,P.O.Box1385,GR71110 Heraklion,Crete,Greece |
          Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl               |

More information about the Crm-sig mailing list